portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
I like small cameras and just got a mju-ii and minox gt-s. Some guys
over at 35mm newsgroup suggested i get an SLR (35mm) if i want to get serious about photography. I don't feel very enthausiastic about 35mm SLR because i don't see that they add much to my preferences other than the size, meaning i'd have to wear the camera around my neck or in a bag rather than i do currently carrying the minox/mjuii in a small belt pouch (i don't like zoom, i don't like flash, i don't like buying lenses, i just simply like available light photography, nature and some landscape). Now, i just realized that i can get 120mm film for about the same price as 35mm film (from a web supplier), and to be honest if i'm going to carry a camera that doesn't fit in my pocket or a bet pouch, i may be more tempted to get a smallest possible 120mm than a 35mm SLR ('cos after all, i'd carry either in a little rucksack and the 120mm would give me something different from the minox and mjuii). Now, 35mm film has advanced considerably lately, and my preferred film is the fuji superia xtra 400 (good enough and i can get it cheaply); What would a medium format offer me that 35mm doesn't? is enlargement potential the only advantage? Also, if so, i can use iso50 35mm film on the mjuii and iso25 35mm on the minox gt-s, would these rival iso100 or iso400 120mm film (those are the ones cheaply/widely available)? the lens on both is f2.8 and so far i feel i can use a slow film (low iso) while still getting adequate exposure. So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask. Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and i think more about composition than technique or technology. Regarding automation, i don't care much about shutter speed (i don't really photograph action/sport) but i would like to have control over focusing and aperture, though not necessarily. regards |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
Mike Henley wrote:
What would a medium format offer me that 35mm doesn't? is enlargement potential the only advantage? Less grain using faster film. I get nice results with asa 800 speed film in 8X10 prints. So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask. The size of the camera doesn't matter. I've taken some shots with a $80 P&S olympus stylus 35mm f2.8 that no one could tell from an expencive SLR. Even some of my old folding 35mm's with tessar/color skopar lenses produce fine results. Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and i think more about composition than technique or technology. This is probably one of the best of the compact folding rangefinders. These aren't real light or cheap though. Most are $350+ http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...7671 581&rd=1 These can work good too and have the advantage of not haveing a front cell focusing lens. The only issue is the frame counter is weak, get one that has already been converted to red window counter operation. Most are under $80-$100. http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/iskra.html This is the smallest/lightest one I've found that produces quality images. I have one of these in 6X4.5 with the folding viewfinder and a zeiss tessar and it's great. It's as small as a 35mm P&S yet uses 120 film! Most are around $100 with a tessar lens. http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ikontaa.html -- Stacey |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
Stacey wrote:
What would a medium format offer me that 35mm doesn't? is enlargement potential the only advantage? Less grain using faster film. I get nice results with asa 800 speed film in 8X10 prints. More image details. Better tonality too. Not just less obvious grain. You know that, Stacey! So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask. The size of the camera doesn't matter. I've taken some shots with a $80 P&S olympus stylus 35mm f2.8 that no one could tell from an expencive SLR. Even some of my old folding 35mm's with tessar/color skopar lenses produce fine results. This particular question is about the size of the film, not the size of the camera, isn't it? ;-) And, yes, even poor MF cameras produce better results than even the finest 35 mm film can produce. |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
Mike Henley wrote:
So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask. Yes. No reason you can't put the same film into the 120 camera. If you want a simple example of what a big negative can do for you get a cheap 120 folder. Nothing fancy. Stick some film in it and try it out. Then compare the prints to a good high $$$ 35mm cameras output. Size matters. Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and i think more about composition than technique or technology. Regarding automation, i don't care much about shutter speed (i don't really photograph action/sport) but i would like to have control over focusing and aperture, though not necessarily. Folders. Designed to slip inside a coat pocket. You'll need a handheld meter. Less then $100 can get you a good example. Nick |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
|
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
|
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: From: (jjs) Exactly 4.7244094488 inches. :) Why, isn't that larger than the actual image size of 4x5? Ah, so he actually meant to post in the large format group? Got it ... and I thought he was just a newbie confusing 120 and 220 format with "120mm film" :) Definitely a guy kinda mistake. Drifting OT, but consider this amusing quote" "The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged." -- Ken Rockwell (See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm) |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
From: (jjs)
Drifting OT, but consider this amusing quote" "The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged." -- Ken Rockwell (See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm) Lurching either further OT, if this is the same guy I tuned him out when he said jpeg was a better format than RAW ... OK, not much to learn from that site :) |
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
Consider making a committment to the format and buying something like
the folding Fuji 645. Superb optics, accurate meter and easily slips into a coat pocket. They've been slipping through the auction site at affordable prices recently. I predict that once you've experienced the results from the larger negative and high grade glass, you'll find it hard to settle for less! On 28 May 2004 21:28:58 -0700, (Mike Henley) wrote: Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and i think more about composition than technique or technology. Regarding automation, i don't care much about shutter speed (i don't really photograph action/sport) but i would like to have control over focusing and aperture, though not necessarily. regards |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com